Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Election Scorecard

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 02:38 PM
Original message
Election Scorecard
Assuming Obama wins The Kerry and Gore States (which looks more than plausible as he leads in these states by over 10%)

He will only need one of the following battleground states to get 270+:

FL (Obama +3) Obama Win% 76%
OH (Obama +6) Obama Win% 86%
GA (McCain +4) Obama Win% 9%
NC (Obama +2) Obama Win% 65%
VA (Obama +7) Obama Win% 96%
IN (McCain +2) Obama Win% 44%
MO (McCain +1) Obama Win% 52%
AZ (McCain +4) Obama Win% 4%
CO (Obama +7) Obama Win% 96%

based on the combined winning%, Obama has a 99.9995581557637% chance of winning one of these states.



Or Any two of:
MT (McCain +4) Obama Win% 12%
ND (McCain +1) Obama Win% 19%
NV (Obama +7) Obama Win% 84%
SD (McCain +9) Obama Win% 1%
WV (McCain +8) Obama Win% 1%

based on the combined winning%, Obama has a 25.796% chance of winning two of these states.

This brings us to a total of 99.9996721356703% chance of Obama winning 270+ Electoral votes through the combination of states above given the primary assumption (which gives him 264 Electoral votes to start with).


(margins from Nov 1 www.electoral-vote.com chances of winning each listed state from Oct 31 www.fivethirtyeight.com )

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Celebrandil Donating Member (254 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. There must be a flaw in those numbers.
Edited on Sat Nov-01-08 02:51 PM by Celebrandil
I suppose you are assuming the results from different states to be statistically uncorrelated. However, most likely they are in fact highly correlated. Thus the combined probabilities will be much different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I used standard methodology
For example:

4% chance of winning AZ In the 96% chance that he loses it, there is a
9% chance of him winning GA (9% * 96%) = 8.64% 4% + 8.64% = 12.64% In the 87.36% chance that he loses AZ and GA, there is a
44% chance of him winning IN (44% * 87.36%) = 38.4384 + 12.64 = 51.0784%.

And so on. Remember he only has to win one of the first list of states. Hence each state % is based onthe percentage of him losing the state(s) listed above)

The methodology is right out of a Graduate level Statistics text book.

For example.

The probability of rolling a six on a single Die is 1/6. The chance of rolling a six on two single sided dice is 1/6 * 1/6. HOWEVER, if I need to roll a single 6 and have a pair of dice to do it with the formula is 1/6 + (1-1/6)* 1/6.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebrandil Donating Member (254 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well... it's hard to model dependencies
You did what people normally do and there is nothing wrong with that. If you can't model the dependencies, simply assume there are none.

However, it's easy to understand that if Obama wins Arizona, the probability of him winning Georgia is probably higher than 9%. Something fundamental has happened in Arizona, that is most likely true also in Georgia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Good point!
My main reason for the thread was really to give a checklist of states to watch.

The stats was just something I had been playing with and decided to add.

Pretty much, if any of the states I listed in the top column are called, it is safe to gather the part favors!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Replying to your edit
Yes I used straight statistics and did not correlate events that could effect the percentages enmass.

I know of no statistical formula available to correlate the many unknown variables needed to do so.

Nonetheless, the methodology is an acceptable model or probability based on the given win percentages in the states included.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC